Moore v. DNATA US INFLIGHT CATERING LLC

Background

Christian L. Moore sued DNATA US Inflight Catering LLC in San Francisco Superior Court on behalf of himself and a proposed class of current and former employees. The complaint asserted various wage-and-hour claims under California law.

DNATA removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), which can provide federal jurisdiction over qualifying class actions. DNATA also asserted an alternative federal-question basis for removal, arguing that the California claims were completely preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) and the Railway Labor Act (RLA).

Moore asked the federal court to send the case back to state court. He argued that DNATA had not reasonably shown that the amount at stake exceeded CAFA's $5 million threshold and that his claims were purely state-law claims that did not require interpreting a collective bargaining agreement.

CAFA jurisdiction

The court said DNATA needed to plausibly show that it was reasonably possible for the amount in controversy to exceed $5 million. The court accepted that the proposed class had more than 100 members and that the parties did not dispute the required minimum diversity of citizenship. The disputed issue was the amount in controversy.

The court found DNATA's estimate inadequate. DNATA assumed a 100% violation rate for waiting-time penalties and wage-statement claims, even though Moore's complaint alleged that violations occurred only “at times” and “on occasion” and may have affected only some employees. DNATA provided no outside evidence supporting the 100% assumptions, which accounted for most of its estimate.

DNATA also assumed a 20% violation rate for meal and rest break claims without tying that figure to evidence or the complaint. Even accepting that estimate for discussion, the court said those penalties totaled only approximately $1.5 million. DNATA's estimated attorney-fee amount could not bring the case above $5 million because it was based on the flawed waiting-time and wage-statement estimates. The court concluded that DNATA had not plausibly demonstrated that at least $5 million was in controversy.

Federal-question jurisdiction

The court separately rejected DNATA's argument that the claims were removable because of complete preemption under Section 301 of the LMRA. Complete preemption is a jurisdictional doctrine that can convert certain state-law claims into federal claims for removal purposes. It applies when deciding the state-law claim requires substantial interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement.

The court said DNATA had shown only that the agreements contained a mandatory grievance procedure. Referring to or consulting a labor agreement is not the same as interpreting it. DNATA therefore had not shown that interpreting a collective bargaining agreement was necessary to resolve Moore's California claims.

The court also rejected removal under the RLA. It explained that, unlike LMRA Section 301, the RLA does not create federal jurisdiction through complete preemption and does not provide a federal cause of action for this purpose.

Disposition

The court concluded that the case was improperly removed under CAFA and was removed without federal subject-matter jurisdiction. It remanded the case to San Francisco Superior Court. Judge James Donato did not rule on whether Moore's wage-and-hour claims ultimately succeed.